2018-2019 Rotation Discussion Thread

[Old Friend]

52 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

You dont need a lockdown defender off the bench. And with Juwan and Romeo we wont need 5 guys who can score starting. 

To not start a guy simply because he is a walk on regardless of ability is just silly. I suppose Bryce Alford shouldnt have started his senior year. Despite averaging over 15 points

McRoberts is not a lock down defender.  He wasn't even mentioned for All Big Ten defensive team.  He is a decent position defender, but he is not a very good on ball defender...and FAR from "lock down."   The reason is not because he is a walk on.  The reason is why.  Come on...you know better than that.   

I'm not getting into these stupid comparison games.  They are meaningless.  McRoberts isn't even a threat to score.  He doesn't have to be guarded tightly.  No conference champion starts a player like that whether he's on scholarship or a walk on, and if he were that talented, he'd have done better than Vermont.  Indiana was devoid of basketball IQ a year ago.  Devoid of defenders at all. 

McRoberts is a willing defender and hard worker; but a "starter" plays starter minutes, and if you really believe Indiana is better off with him playing 24-28 minutes every game, I disagree completely.   If he started and played 7 minutes, I could live with that, but that's not what starters do.

[Old Friend]

54 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

I think your post was excellent, and that you did a really nice job stating your case. Also, I often agree with your thoughts on how the team will flow, especially lately!

Funny thing is, the biggest disagreement I have with you is on your point number five! Especially after last night’s statements by Archie, I am pretty much completely convinced that the chances of Davis being a contributor this year are slim to none.



Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I didn't know that (Archie's comments about Davis), so consider that an uninformed mistake and I stand corrected.

[Brass Cannon]

See now your argument is changing, before he shouldn't start simply because he was a walk on.  Now you are getting into his ability so which one is it.  

The guy makes winning plays that don't always translate into the stat sheet.  Not every position needs to score when you have two guys who are going to be be top 10, perhaps top 5 in the conference.  You need guys who are going to play smart basketball and make winning plays.  

Would I start McRoberts probably not, but the idea is hardly ludicrous.  

And you say successful teams don't play guys like him.  Michigan State just played Matt McQuaid who had a similar PER and Minutes per game.  He had more points but fewer rebounds and steals.  And yes he didn't start but he was sixth man.  

Purdue started PJ Thompson who wasn't that much higher in PER outscored McRoberts but had fewer rebounds and steals.  

How did Michigan state and Purdue fair last year in conference?

If we needed scoring in the starting line up I would probably agree it would be silly to start McRoberts but we don't need scoring, we need defense, rebounding and somebody to take care of the basketball.  All things McRoberts does.  

And no conference champion starts a guy who isn't a real threat to score?  IU started Colin Hartman 24 games the year they won the Big Ten.  He was there 8th leading scorer.  7th because of the Blackmon injury.  Two guys who came off the bench scored more points.  

[HoosierHoops1]

18 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

See now your argument is changing, before he shouldn't start simply because he was a walk on.  Now you are getting into his ability so which one is it.  

The guy makes winning plays that don't always translate into the stat sheet.  Not every position needs to score when you have two guys who are going to be be top 10, perhaps top 5 in the conference.  You need guys who are going to play smart basketball and make winning plays.  

Would I start McRoberts probably not, but the idea is hardly ludicrous.  

And you say successful teams don't play guys like him.  Michigan State just played Matt McQuaid who had a similar PER and Minutes per game.  He had more points but fewer rebounds and steals.  And yes he didn't start but he was sixth man.  

Purdue started PJ Thompson who wasn't that much higher in PER outscored McRoberts but had fewer rebounds and steals.  

How did Michigan state and Purdue fair last year in conference?

If we needed scoring in the starting line up I would probably agree it would be silly to start McRoberts but we don't need scoring, we need defense, rebounding and somebody to take care of the basketball.  All things McRoberts does.  

And no conference champion starts a guy who isn't a real threat to score?  IU started Colin Hartman 24 games the year they won the Big Ten.  He was there 8th leading scorer.  7th because of the Blackmon injury.  Two guys who came off the bench scored more points.  

And, as coach Miller said last night, He wishes he would have started playing McRoberts a little sooner, and we may have won a couple more games.

[Mr. Hibachi]

Based on Davis’s injury I wouldn’t expect him to play at all next season

[rcbowla]

McRoberts is not a lock down defender.  He wasn't even mentioned for All Big Ten defensive team.  He is a decent position defender, but he is not a very good on ball defender...and FAR from "lock down."   The reason is not because he is a walk on.  The reason is why.  Come on...you know better than that.   
I'm not getting into these stupid comparison games.  They are meaningless.  McRoberts isn't even a threat to score.  He doesn't have to be guarded tightly.  No conference champion starts a player like that whether he's on scholarship or a walk on, and if he were that talented, he'd have done better than Vermont.  Indiana was devoid of basketball IQ a year ago.  Devoid of defenders at all. 
McRoberts is a willing defender and hard worker; but a "starter" plays starter minutes, and if you really believe Indiana is better off with him playing 24-28 minutes every game, I disagree completely.   If he started and played 7 minutes, I could live with that, but that's not what starters do.

I disagree with starters playing starter minutes. That wasn't the case in a number of games last season. Starters set the tone for what you want the rest of each half to be.

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

57 minutes ago, Mr. Hibachi said:

Based on Davis’s injury I wouldn’t expect him to play at all next season

Welcome to btb and we hope we see you posting on a regular basis.

[Old Friend]

4 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

See now your argument is changing, before he shouldn't start simply because he was a walk on.  Now you are getting into his ability so which one is it.  

The guy makes winning plays that don't always translate into the stat sheet.  Not every position needs to score when you have two guys who are going to be be top 10, perhaps top 5 in the conference.  You need guys who are going to play smart basketball and make winning plays.  

Would I start McRoberts probably not, but the idea is hardly ludicrous.  

And you say successful teams don't play guys like him.  Michigan State just played Matt McQuaid who had a similar PER and Minutes per game.  He had more points but fewer rebounds and steals.  And yes he didn't start but he was sixth man.  

Purdue started PJ Thompson who wasn't that much higher in PER outscored McRoberts but had fewer rebounds and steals.  

How did Michigan state and Purdue fair last year in conference?

If we needed scoring in the starting line up I would probably agree it would be silly to start McRoberts but we don't need scoring, we need defense, rebounding and somebody to take care of the basketball.  All things McRoberts does.  

And no conference champion starts a guy who isn't a real threat to score?  IU started Colin Hartman 24 games the year they won the Big Ten.  He was there 8th leading scorer.  7th because of the Blackmon injury.  Two guys who came off the bench scored more points.  

No...my argument isn't changing at all.  I told you before....it's not just that he's a walk on...it's why.  If you want me to write a book for you and use 7,209 words in every post, I would be happy to spell everything out for you in every post.  Or...I can shorten it and simply say there's a reason he is a walk on, and that reason is he's that caliber of a player at Indiana.  He was needed last season, but if you didn't notice his liabilities, that's on you.  

Your Hartman example is awful.   He was a very capable shooter and a threat to score.  McRobers is not.  Your eyes work, right?  He avoids trying to score.  Dribbles out of the lane to give the ball up.  

If you need McRoberts to do the things you say above, we need him to do those things in starter minutes, right?  So you're telling me this team needs McRoberts on the floor 24-30 minutes a game, right?   That would leave me speechless if I thought you really believed that.  

You're seriously....seriously going to compare PJ Thompson - a pure point guard, still averaged 7.8 PPG.  He also shot a better percentage.  What's the comparison there?   You're reaching.   And not grabbing anything.  

Matt McQuaid?   McQuaid averaged double what McRoberts did in fewer minutes.  McRiobers scored 78 points all season, and 24  (about 1/3rd) of them were against IPFW, Tennessee Tech, and Youngstown State.   He scored in double figures one time.  Once.  He was held scoreless 12 times.  McQuaid took 165 shots...McRoberts 63.  McQuaid made 67 shots.  McRobers made 27.  McQuaid made more than McRoberts took.  And McQuaid played fewer minutes per game.  One was a threat to score...one was not. 

McRoberts' statistical numbers at Indiana are much lower than they were at Vermont because that's his true level.  He was fine on a bad team a year ago...but this is not a bad team.  It's an athletic, deep, talented team that does not need a scrappy try hard to play major minutes.  My story hasn't changed at all.  He is a role player on this team, and if we need him to be more than that, we're in trouble.    This season's team is not last season's team and you can't use last year as a barometer for this year.  We are much deeper, much more talented, and so far, we haven't lost 2 key guys to injury.  Using last season to compare to this one is a fool's errand.  

As I said, I love McRoberts off the bench.  I am not anti-Zach McRoberts.   I just don't see him as a starter.  We need production as much as effort if we're going to win anything.

[Old Friend]

3 hours ago, rcs29 said:

I disagree with starters playing starter minutes. That wasn't the case in a number of games last season. Starters set the tone for what you want the rest of each half to be.

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app
 

On what successful team at any level do starters not play starter minutes?

[Brass Cannon]

7 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

On what successful team at any level do starters not play starter minutes?

Define starters minutes?

[Old Friend]

19 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Define starters minutes?

Normal rotation?  20-30 minutes a night depending on the team, depth, foul trouble, etc.  

You can look this up yourself, but for the sake of the question, last season:

Morgan  29.4 MPG

Johnson  34.2 MPG

Newkirk  23.3 MPG

Those three were the only ones to start more than 20 games, so they're the ones I'll use that played "starter minutes" in any normal rotation.   We do not need McRobers to play that many minutes this season.  We did last; and he did.  We need 10-12 minutes this season, game dependent.

[rcbowla]

On what successful team at any level do starters not play starter minutes?

Houston Rockets?

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app

[Stuhoo]

8 hours ago, Old Friend said:

Normal rotation?  20-30 minutes a night depending on the team, depth, foul trouble, etc.  

You can look this up yourself, but for the sake of the question, last season:

Morgan  29.4 MPG

Johnson  34.2 MPG

Newkirk  23.3 MPG

Those three were the only ones to start more than 20 games, so they're the ones I'll use that played "starter minutes" in any normal rotation.   We do not need McRobers to play that many minutes this season.  We did last; and he did.  We need 10-12 minutes this season, game dependent.

 

Holy crap...Newkirk was third on the team in minutes per game last year!?!

Yeesh.

 

[Old Friend]

6 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

Houston Rockets?

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app
 

Harden, Paul, Gordon, Capela, Tucker, and Ariza all play 30+ minutes a night.    Help me understand what you're trying to say.

[rcbowla]

Harden, Paul, Gordon, Capela, Tucker, and Ariza all play 30+ minutes a night.    Help me understand what you're trying to say.

1. You only start 5 players and you've listed 6. So which of those is the exception to the rule.

2. Capela started every game he played and was 6th on the team in minutes.

3. Gordon started less than half of his games and was 4th in terms of MPG.

4. Anderson started 3/4 of his games and was 7th.

5. Neither Tucker or Capela avg. over 30 MPG

 

So what is it you're not understanding about what I'm saying? You asked what successful team had starters that didn't play starters minutes, which in itself is subjective, and I'm giving you an example. That is unless you want to argue Gordon was a starter which would be a tough argument for you considering the available statistics that would strongly disagree.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app

 

 

 

[MikeRoberts]

If Green starts over phinisee then I think McRoberts needs to start. He needs to play alongside 3 or 4 scorers. Morgan is a scorer, Langford is a scorer, Smith is a scorer, green is a scorer so having one guy out there that is a junkyard dog setting screens and getting tip-ins is ok.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Old Friend]

13 minutes ago, rcs29 said:

1. You only start 5 players and you've listed 6. So which of those is the exception to the rule.

Exception to what rule?   You're creating a straw man argument.   I never said a word about how many minutes a sub can play.  You can either argue the point or you can't.  If you have to create a point in order to argue against it, you're not good at this.  Stop it.

2. Capela started every game he played and was 6th on the team in minutes.

Again, so what?  Not the point.  He averaged 30+ minutes in the playoffs...starter minutes. What's YOUR point?

3. Gordon started less than half of his games and was 4th in terms of MPG.

And again....so what?  This has never been debated.

4. Anderson started 3/4 of his games and was 7th.

Ryan Anderson did not start a single game in the playoffs.  He's not a starter for them.   He did start 50 times in the regular season, many due to injury, did not start in the other 16 games he played, and STILL played 26+ minutes in every game.  If you look at the ratio of minutes I gave as far as how many minutes starters play?   He fits.  Half the game to 2/3 of the game.  26 is more than half of 48 in case you need help with the math.

5. Neither Tucker or Capela avg. over 30 MPG

Both have in the post season.  And both 27+ in regular season, but you can nit pick if you feel like it.

So what is it you're not understanding about what I'm saying?  Pretty much everything.   Start saying relevant things.  You asked what successful team had starters that didn't play starters minutes, which in itself is subjective, and I'm giving you an example. You are....but you're also wrong.  And you're also giving examples that debate a point I'm not making.  But hey....well done.  That is unless you want to argue Gordon was a starter which would be a tough argument for you considering the available statistics that would strongly disagree. You seem quite capable of creating arguments for me.   I'll let you fight with the mirror some more.

Have anything else?  (I do wonder if anyone finds relevant a nit picky comparison with an NBA team relevant to this discussion, and if so, if they find your points compelling after they've been countered.  Methinks you may be on this hill by yourself.  Which will be entertaining.)

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using BtownBanners mobile app

 

 

 

 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

This is all getting a bit into the minutiae. I agree with the basic premise, which is: McRoberts playing 20+ minutes per game this year would signal we aren't as good/talented as we all thought heading into the season.

[Old Friend]

8 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

This is all getting a bit into the minutiae. I agree with the basic premise, which is: McRoberts playing 20+ minutes per game this year would signal we aren't as good/talented as we all thought heading into the season.

Exceptional first sentence.  Some people just want to argue.  It sometimes takes minutiae in order to satisfy that craving, and I find it sporty to counter.   My apologies for my role in it, however sometimes...a good debate is needed for some.

[Brass Cannon]

People disagree with that basic premise. The top 2 teams in the big ten leaned heavily on players similar to McRoberts. 

There is no reason to use him playing as a knock on the team